I remember one college class where we had to write an analysis of an article supporting a controversial social issue. At first, I thought it was a fine article as I agreed with the conclusion. My homework, though, was not to agree or disagree, but to analyze and it turns out that it really wasn't a very good article. It made unsubstantiated claims about history, referred to unnamed "studies" and it attacked opponents as "bigots" (which may be true, but isn't a justification for the premise). I figured that those in the class who opposed the issue would have a field day with this.

The next day, those who agree with the conclusion generally thought it was well-written. I expected this due to confirmation bias. What I didn't expect was that those who disagreed with the premise didn't attack the article at all. Not one. They attacked the conclusion. They were adamant about their opinions, but not one of them thought critically enough about the article to point out its flaws. All things considered, this was a perfect microcosm of politics.

So let's say you're watching TV and there's a major press conference on. An unknown (to you) political candidate, Bill Blatherson is asked about his views on abortion, gun control and gay marriage. As soon as you hear those answers, you probably already know two things:

But what happens if they're talking about a school board voting procedures or adjusting zoning regulations to address home businesses needs? There's a good chance that you'll look for the (R) or the (D) next to the candidate's name. I do this myself and frankly, this is dangerous No political party has a monopoly on good ideas, but people are constantly looking at the (R) and (D) to determine if they support an idea. Everyone's made up their mind about abortion and gun control, but funding for a new sewage line? Let's see which political party supports it and then I'll tell you.

Two perfect examples: plenty of "conservatives" are strongly defending Sarah Palin despite the fact that she completely goes against McCain's strong argument that experience matters. Plenty of "liberals" are defending the nomination of Biden as Obama's vice presidential candidates despite this being completely at odds with Obama's repeated attacks against McCain based on McCain's tenure in Washington. People are lining up and taking sides regardless of truth and this has to stop.

To be perfectly fair, if you've gotten to the point that you tend to trust one political party over another, it's not a crime to defer to them over issues that you don't understand or care about. There's a reason we elect people we are supposed trust on the issues. However, if we get emotional and defensive about issues we don't understand (for example, very few people could begin to describe the background of the Israeli/Palestinian situation), then we're making a mistake by ceding our authority to someone else, but strongly defending positions we're ignorant of.

I think it's time that we stop talking about Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives or other things which "categorize" people politically. I've been part of the problem on this myself and I'm going to try and stop. This doesn't mean that I won't take swipes at stupid things politicians say and do, but I'm going to try and stop the categorization. Furthering the we/they mentality is throwing fuel on the fire. If you catch me doing this in the future, please call me on it!

1. For the Libertarians who cry foul, let's face it: the press doesn't give you major press conferences.

Have you seen this TED video? The speaker basically discusses the difference between liberals and conservatives from a moral point of view. The speaker's not all that good, and a lot of his jokes fall flat, but eventually the talk gets going and his results start to speak for themselves. I think it's worth a look.

This isn't a problem of political parties, this is a problem of a wolf in sheep's clothing, of neocons somehow having gulled fundamentalist christians in the US into cleaving to their parties, regardless of whether their interests are served by that or not.

Obviously, this line of thought is totally my bag. I've been an (I) for a long time mostly because of what you've said here. But there's a line that has been crossed for me, and I call it Identity Politics.

My current enquiry into 'Who Am I?' has changed some of my perceptions about things and made me aware of other things. Politics isn't really about the issues, it is about people's images and identities. Some identify themselves as (R), (D), or otherwise. They ARE something rather than being someone who tends to vote in a certain way. It is an egotistical control mechanism--"I want to see my shoulds cast upon the world"; "I want to make a difference". And as long as everyone acts in this way, nothing will actually get done--there will be no reconciliation, no peace, no working together, no policies will ever work. All that will happen will be small, thought-based evolutionary changes (case in point: Latino Republicans).

Admittedly, I have a vision that I'm attached to as well. The trick for me is to find a way to disassociate it with my identity; once that happens, no one can attack me personally. Attack my ideas, go ahead--they're just ideas; they're not real.

Your analysis showed that the form was a part of the problem--but the form was also what was ignored. Identity is form in this regard. Looking at how you identify with things helps you to see your own flaws and motivations. Self-analysis... Does any of this make sense, or am I just rambling about shit going on in my own head?

You're making perfect sense to me. The "vision that I'm attached to" is the part that I'm struggling with. It's so easy to judge from that perspective that I'm calling my objectivity into question. That's disturbing, but I'm glad to know you're thinking about this, too.